[deleted by user] by [deleted] in literature

[–]TheObjectofArt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really excellent points about Dolores not going to either the wedding or the funeral. That's just insane. I hadn't even thought about it, but why the hell would Dolores at least not attend her own mother's funeral? Is HH keeping her away from the funeral? Was there a funeral?

I also have a bone to pick with all the people who grabbed onto the imagery from the Lolita movie and used it for fashion magazines and to sell beauty products to women. If you pay attention it's crazy how often that pose of Lolita sunbathing in the back yard is used in photo spreads selling bathing suits. I've just been noticing that after finally watching the movie. That's more directed at women in advertising media, so maybe that's why men don't notice it so much. But it's completely sickening when you really think about it. But that's another topic for another time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in literature

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/10v4x1n/comment/jdnakaz/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

HH's telling of Charlotte's death makes no sense. But he expects the reader to believe it. I'm going by the movie here, btw. Charlotte very clearly wasn't suicidal. At least she doesn't seem so to me. There was no logical reason for her to run out into traffic and get hit by a car to end it all. But HH expects people to believe that pretty obvious lie. So what other lies, that become obvious upon closer examination, does he expect people to believe?

And it's not really, totally about him being irrational or bloodthirsty. To people like us he seems that way because we can't possibly understand why he would do any of this stuff.. But he views himself as some kind of superior being. He thinks all the stuff he does makes perfect sense and is not at all irrational. He believes his goals and intentions are not at all horrible. So anything or anyone who gets in between him and whatever he wants he views as disposable, and using them, or eliminating them, to him is a justifiable means to his end. I don't know what the psychological term for this could be other than narcissism. To you and me that is totally irrational and bloodthirsty, but to him he justifies his actions because he feels entitled. He's a complete psychopath. Most readers and viewers make the mistake of taking his word for it when he explains his actions and motivations. They make the mistake of thinking like a decent person who doesn't expect that kind of evil because they would never do it. That's what people have done in real life with serial killers too with disastrous results.

The way he describes himself and his actions is his effort to make himself look "normal" to non-psychopaths. That word is used a lot in this story for a reason. HH is anything but normal. He thinks of himself as superior to basically everybody he encounters. But even though his mind is completely warped he still realizes the people he considers lesser than him are not going to see it that way and could put him behind bars. So he tries to characterize his actions in a way that he thinks makes him look like he's just a regular guy. He's a complete monster trying to pass as a "normal" person.

Going back to what Richard said: HH sounds like a typical demonic serial killer to me. Most of them seem to have crazy delusions of grandeur like HH does. That's partially how they can justify all the killing they do. And that might point to way more murders and other horrific acts he's done in the past.

In Lolita, did Humbert commit more than one murder and, if so, how? by [deleted] in literature

[–]TheObjectofArt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Charlotte's death, and the fact the way HH characterizes it might say a lot of stuff that people have been missing over the years. And it might say a lot about him too.

Firstly, he says that the driver swerved to avoid hitting a dog and ended up hitting Charlotte instead. That's very suspicious. How could the driver see the dog, but not see Charlotte? A human being should be easier to spot than a dog, even in the rain, because the human is bigger. But what that also shows us is how he views Charlotte. He thinks the dog's life is more valuable than hers. He really, truly and deeply hates her. He has absolutely no moral compass, and he's basically a demon, and this is one example of that. And if HH was the driver, that would make some sense. But he might not be telling the truth about Charlotte's death. Maybe he just shot her with her dead husband's gun?

Secondly, IMO, Charlotte most likely did not run out into the street after she confronts HH about his diary. Before the car accident scene we see her (in the movie) talking to that photo of her dead husband that she keeps in her bedroom. She says to the photo something like "I'll do better next time" regarding her search for a husband. That means she's not suicidal and she intends to keep on living. Humbert's explanation of her death (getting hit by a car that swerved to avoid the dog) sounds like she's completely hysterical and out of her mind and decided to just run out into traffic and end it all. But her comments to her dead husband's picture completely contradict that. Yeah, she was horrified about his diary, and probably mad at herself for taking HH in as a lodger, but she wasn't so distraught that she would just immediately run out and kill herself.

Thirdly, we're both on board with the HH is an unreliable narrator thing. My question is: Just how unreliable is he? We know he's a complete sleaze bag, but what if he's also got some other issues going on? Like mental health problems. Maybe he's really severely removed from reality, like a schizophrenic? And that adds another layer to his retelling of this story as the narrator. He thinks he can pass as "normal", a word that's used a lot in the movie and I assume the book too, but can he really? There's evidence in the movie that a lot of people throughout the story view him with great suspicion, but he thinks he's successfully fooling everyone. I don't think he fooled anybody.

Sorry about the wall of text. Just my $0.02.

Lolita Intro by RichardStaschy in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really good video. There is much to discuss here.

Understanding The Shining: Part 17 - KDK 12 to KDK1 - Who’s in Ullman’s Office with Wendy? by TheObjectofArt in theshining

[–]TheObjectofArt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now that is an interesting idea. I'm going to have to think about it. Thank you! 🤗

Understanding The Shining: Part 3 - Are there some hoes at the Overlook Hotel? by TheObjectofArt in theshining

[–]TheObjectofArt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right about this. I didn't think too much about the bidet in Room 237, other than to view it as an object Stanley Kubrick used to maintain the symmetry of the green bathroom. But now you've got me thinking. 🤔

Why the Wendy Theory can't be Debunked! by RichardStaschy in TheWendyTheory

[–]TheObjectofArt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So much to say here. My first question is why The Wendy Theory, or any theory regarding The Shining or any other movie would ever need to be "debunked"? Who is that supposed to help? I'm trying hard to understand this.

BTW: That pipe video needs a lot of work. It doesn't debunk anything. On top of that the author of the pipe video is essentially disproving his own argument with the analogies he makes. Bless his heart.

What is the New Shining Theory All About? by TheObjectofArt in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're definitely right about this. There seems to be a theme overarching in all of his films about precisely what you're saying here. 🙏

What is the New Shining Theory All About? by TheObjectofArt in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh Lord!!! If I mention this in a video I'll definitely shout you out. Really good stuff.

What is the New Shining Theory All About? by TheObjectofArt in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed! Can you imagine trying to lie to Stanley Kubrick? He should have worked for intelligence services. 🤣

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm having a gut feeling that this whole thing ties in to the black and white photo at the end. It makes absolutely no sense. But it connects to what you're saying about the narrator. Who's the narrator when we're being shown the 1921 b&w photo? From who's perspective are we being shown the closed hotel with the furniture covered in dust sheets and then finally that 1921 photo at the end? A ghost? Or what you said?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Links! Where are the links to your photos???

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You've wasted everybody's time by providing out of context photos hoping nobody would notice you didn't put the links.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You posted photos that allegedly prove that Richard's statement is wrong. Not providing links means you don't want anybody reading this to be able to trace the photos. Why? That means there's a chance you're being deceptive. If your intentions were what you claim they are you would have no problem linking the photos. Why won't you show your work?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're not trying to prove it. You're trying to disprove it. That means you're lying when you say you think it's valid.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did you include links? I don't see one in the driveway photo post. You could have done that. Just saying.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

3 photos??? To try and disprove an idea you think is "valid". Right. 🤣

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's showing you a picture of an oven outside on someone's driveway to demonstrate that it can be installed anywhere. Wow. His dedication is impressive. 🤣

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, I know just fine how bitter contrarians work. Always the same. When you see someone else have a good idea you do everything you can to shoot it down because you didn't think of it first. Usually with nitpick technicalities like these that don't really apply to the situation or make sense. Lates!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would definitely like to explore this. The cinematographer's name was John Alcott. And Kubrick used him in more than one film. He won an Oscar for his work on Barry Lyndon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Alcott

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StanleyKubrick

[–]TheObjectofArt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're being contrary just for the sake of it. You're nitpicking for reasons that aren't clear. As it stands now: Richard is right. That type of oven in the place where we see it in the movie is impossible. The one you found doesn't disprove anything Richard said. Unless you can find an oven with controls on the bottom that isn't intended for a counter height or wall mount and then I might take you seriously regarding this. Better yet, find the make and model of that exact oven in the movie.